Lamenting things I haven't been able to play...

[Delirium]

Huh.. I'd thought that they would have allowed you to play your full sorcerers even if future ones were axed.

I would have been mighty miffed if I were you.

Well, it was storage or switch to one of the new guild / subguild options, but since the latter option would require ret-conning her entire story, I decided to store.

I was disappointed, yes. I said as much. But I'd already learned that there was no arguing with staff decisions once they were made.

Edit:
To note, staff seem to have learned from that experience, at least from what I've seen of their considerate and thoughtful treatment of the characters affected by the closure of Tuluk.

[Nyr]

There is quite a bit of equivalency in what we offered to players of the old-style sorcerer system and what we offered to players in Tuluk.

For sorcerers:
We announced the change a couple of weeks in advance to the players of sorcerers to give them time to process the change and deal with it because it was a major paradigm change for their play.
You could keep playing the character, but your guild and subguild would need to change. 
If playing the same character wasn't feasible or you did not wish to keep playing the same character, we would store the PC.
At the time, we expected players to engage in dialogue with staff about what would work best for them.

For Tuluki players:
We announced the change a couple of weeks in advance to give players time to process the change and deal with it because it was a major paradigm change for the entire game and not just their immediate characters.
If your role allows it, you can keep playing the character, but your locale of play would need to change.
If playing the same character wasn't feasible or you did not wish to keep playing the same character, we would store the PC.
At the time, we expected players to engage in dialogue with staff about what would work best for them.

The only major difference I notice here is that the Tuluk announcement required a great deal of discussion with players in advance as it affected more players.  The smaller number of (approximately 4) old-style sorcerer PCs were easier to engage with directly via e-mail without involving the rest of the playerbase.  We were prepared to discuss in both cases specific plot options that might have worked.

[BadSkeelz]

Good god there were four sorcerers in the game at that time?

[Nyr]

Good god there were four sorcerers in the game at that time?

I recall there being four e-mails sent out, but I don't remember if all four were active.

[Malken]

Good god there were four sorcerers in the game at that time?

That's like three more than Tuluki players at the time heh heh heh *highfive*

[Delirium]

This is the email I received.

Greetings,

We've moved away from having full sorcerers in the game and have changed them over to being subguilds.  As part of that we're having all full sorcerers pick a new guild/subguild appropriate to their character concept.

We'll take how far along your character is currently branched and apply that to updating your character after making the guild/subguild conversion.

The primary guild of your character can be any non-casting guild, while your subguild can be any of the following:

http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Enlightenment%20Magick
http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Enchantment%20Magick
http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Movement%20Magick
http://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Combat%20Magick

That certainly did not seem to invite dialogue. That was "this is what it is, choose or store."

You can argue that I could have initiated dialogue, but why would I want to do that when it's obvious that

a) I can't change staff's mind
b) choosing a new guild/subguild for my character would have made absolutely no sense unless I retconned her entire existence

As I've said before, though in a more tongue-in-cheek fashion - you guys really need to work on your PR sometimes.

I wasn't trying to start a debate, merely expressing my disappointment but stating a positive in that the Tuluk closure was handled better.

[Delirium]

Good god there were four sorcerers in the game at that time?

I guarantee you that most sorcerers died very, very quickly. Or somewhat quickly. Or went inactive. Out of that four, it's a safe bet that only two or three were active and maybe one or two were capable of being more than bug food. The role of a sorcerer is (was) tough, I really can't overstate that. The ones that are stupid get caught really quickly. Generally the ones that are super badass when discovered have been around so long that it's just a matter of time before someone finally outs them and they're forced to go public renegade.

[Nyr]

Good point.

I mentioned this at the time, as this was our expectation on staff at the time:

What would you recommend for the future?

Create an engaging and IC story for those who will be affected by the change that will either lead to their PCs logically easing into whatever transition is deemed necessary or writing their stories to whatever conclusion there may be (death/storage).

That way you create fun for the player to ease what will inevitably feel like a punishment.

I don't think this would have been out of the question if requested/discussed with staff, but I could be wrong.

The PCs running those sorcerers were left holding a bag of shit with no real logical way to move forward with their characters.

In that particular situation, I think one possible option would be responding with discussion or thoughts on moving forward with said bag of shit, if possible.

We assumed too much then--that players in such a position would know to (or want to) reach back out if they had issues.  You're right, it's better to specify as much as possible in advance.

[Is Friday]

I think that is a communication issue situation I have (recently) dealt with. Overall I feel that my staff did a good job once the dialogue began. Up until that point it was just frustration.

I see this as something that was a trend but has (over time and with a lot of effort) become less frequent. The case where I see this happening the most are roles with expectations on them. E.G. sorceror, magicker, leaders, etc.

[Delirium]

Or you (collective you) could say "sorry about that, we could have handled that better", but I guess that's too much to ask.

I really wasn't intending to start a debate or point fingers, I was actually trying to be positive.

I guess you couldn't stand to leave it at "gee, maybe we did screw up" and just had to post a response which shifted the blame back onto the player. I can safely say it is my interactions with staff which have left me so thoroughly disenchanted with the game these days.

I'm out, thanks.

[bcw81]

Moderated some things. Please keep it civil in here guys.

[Is Friday]

Looked civil to me. Just didn't make certain people look good.

[Nyr]

Unmoderated some things.

Sorry about that, it wasn't my intention to create a kerfuffle about this.  I started by saying you have a good point.  I then showed what our reasoning was at the time.  I then pointed out how that reasoning was flawed.  I then pointed out that you were right--that as much as possible needed to be specified in advance.

As this may have upset you, let me add:

Gee, maybe we did screw up.  Sorry about that, we could have handled that better.

The intention is definitely not to shift blame onto the player.  We do expect players to communicate with staff when there are issues, but we need to communicate well from our side first.

[Revenant]

This makes me sad. I can only imagine what the players of sorcs were going through at the time. Knowing how hard it is to even get a spec app in for a krathi or drovian without having your concept shot to pieces and your previous RP nitpicked has pretty much convinced me I will never be able to play these roles, much less a sorcerer, psionicist or mul. That's ok with me, I can accept and deal with the fact that no one trusts me to handle those roles, and that no matter how engaging I try to be, it will never be enough to overcome these barriers. However, I don't think it's wise to roughly handle those who, not only have proven themselves worthy of such roles, but also invested the time and effort into making them viable, with a flat-out statement that, these changes will be made to your character, shooting your concept to shit, deal with it.

I admit I'm intrigued by the quarter-sorc concept and want to play one. However, the whole sorc-subguild idea was originally four karma, which seemed like something maybe someday I could play and experiment with. Once it was opened to the public it got bumped way out of my range, I guess it was a balance issue and I can understand that. But this isn't about me. My personal opinion is that those playing sorcerers at the time should have been allowed to play out their concept as it was originally designed, knowing that they would be the last, at least, for a while, to be able to do so. Removing the option from play for players who have managed to gather the necessary trust with staff, -as- they're playing it, is like saying, "We trust you. Wait, no, actually, we don't trust you, hand that back.". Knowing that people who've invested so many years of their life in acquiring that level of trust from staff, only to get the rug yanked out from under them, is not very encouraging to even try to get to that point. It doesn't set a good example for newer players.

I mean, in the end, I understand why what was done was done, and support it, I just think the players of sorcs could have been handled a little gentler, and allowed to finish up playing their concept, taking as much time as necessary to do so. I'm not saying what I'm saying to be mean, I really do want the best for everyone involved. What has been done cannot be undone, but there will be more changes in the future, perhaps they can be handled a little differently.

[BadSkeelz]

I would have liked to have played a warrior before the "defense nerf," whatever that was.

[RogueGunslinger]

I would have liked to have played a warrior before the "defense nerf," whatever that was.

I think warriors were less powerful compared to other guilds because of that change. Though I'm not even sure there was really ever a defense nerf. Staff have denied it if I remember correctly.

[Malken]

I would have liked to have played a warrior before the "defense nerf," whatever that was.

I think warriors were less powerful compared to other guilds because of that change. Though I'm not even sure there was really ever a defense nerf. Staff have denied it if I remember correctly.

It's not so much a a defense "nerd" as it was the addition of a mega penalty to your defense the more pcs or npcs were attacking you. That's what people are talking about when they mention the defense nerf. It was made public when that happened.

[Talia]

It's not so much a a defense "nerd"

lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

I just got the best image of, like, Synthesis playing this squinty-eyed warrior guy who goes around pulling up his pants to above his waist and criticizing other warriors' defensive styles in a very technical manner.

[BadSkeelz]

That's kind of how I imagine Tor Scorpions, really.

[Ender]

Unmoderated some things.

Sorry about that, it wasn't my intention to create a kerfuffle about this.  I started by saying you have a good point.  I then showed what our reasoning was at the time.  I then pointed out how that reasoning was flawed.  I then pointed out that you were right--that as much as possible needed to be specified in advance.

As this may have upset you, let me add:

Gee, maybe we did screw up.  Sorry about that, we could have handled that better.

The intention is definitely not to shift blame onto the player.  We do expect players to communicate with staff when there are issues, but we need to communicate well from our side first.

I wanted to thank you for posting this Nyr.  As a player, I often have grievances over how I think something is handled, but many times I feel like I have to pick my battles.  The reason for this is (imagined or not) there's a feeling that as a player I have everything to lose and little to gain when I'm upset about how staff has handled or is handling something.

I even had accusations thrown at me that I never bothered to dispute because I just felt like there was nothing to gain by trying to clear my name.

Armageddon creates a lot of strong emotions in its players as we put in a great deal of time, energy, and emotion into our characters and become very attached to them for better or worse.


Because of all this, I think it's absolutely paramount that Staffers open that dialogue first.  As staff, you seemingly have no risk in dealing with a player, so coming out and saying "yes, we are open to your ideas, nothing is off limits to discuss" will open the floodgates for creativity and discussion in situations like this when otherwise a player may feel too daunted to want to even risk disputing a staff decision.

[Is Friday]

Thanks Nyr. We won't call you Nyrbama anymore.

[palomar]

I would have liked to have played a warrior before the "defense nerf," whatever that was.

I think warriors were less powerful compared to other guilds because of that change. Though I'm not even sure there was really ever a defense nerf. Staff have denied it if I remember correctly.

It's not so much a a defense "nerd" as it was the addition of a mega penalty to your defense the more pcs or npcs were attacking you. That's what people are talking about when they mention the defense nerf. It was made public when that happened.

There was also something back in 2006-ish about parry not working as intended and it was eventually fixed, with the result that PCs of some guilds weren't as defensively strong as they had been. Maybe that's the defense nerf, I dunno.

Back on topic, I think I would have enjoyed playing an Anyali/Plainsfolk PC. Always liked their accent.

[Revenant]

Yeah, I should add, I highly approve of the way staff is communicating these days, although my communication skills could use some work... Having come from a PvP mud that could have just been called "Grief" and gotten away with it, even my favorite staffers on that game, who would talk to me on the regular, would still hurl exploding shit from outer space at my character's head without a moment's thought. Good thing it wasn't an RPI. Without some outside perspective on how other admins on other games deal with "issues", I don't think I'd be able to fully appreciate how hard you folks are trying to make things work (which could lead me to misread the tone of responses), though this is not a criticism of them either, as their style of communication is what works for their game. I've sent in my kudos to the staff here for that (with different wording), but if I don't voice it publicly, people may think I'm just being negative for the sake of it, and that's not healthy for anyone.

So yeah, staff, not mad, appreciate the effort a good deal more than you may know, just, speaking my thoughts.

[Asmoth]

This makes me sad. I can only imagine what the players of sorcs were going through at the time. Knowing how hard it is to even get a spec app in for a krathi or drovian without having your concept shot to pieces and your previous RP nitpicked has pretty much convinced me I will never be able to play these roles, much less a sorcerer, psionicist or mul. That's ok with me, I can accept and deal with the fact that no one trusts me to handle those roles, and that no matter how engaging I try to be, it will never be enough to overcome these barriers....

I will say that they seem to be more optimistic on special apps lately at least from my point of view.

I was given a max point spec app recently and honestly had anticipated failure on that regard when I created the app, but was pleasantly surprised.

Now I was relegated to a certain type of what I was, but seeing as I hadn't played one before that was fine.  So I enjoyed the role and thank them for letting me do it.

Now I have been in the past super impulsive and defensive to criticism about role play and corrections of it, I used to think that every single skilled action required an emote and that every single action required a thought. I now use emotes and thoughts but not as much as I thought they wanted to when I received negative feedback forever ago about my skill skill skill type of playing without any actions from my character.

Take magickers for instance, you can get spells that literally can end a players life in one casting, regardless of how strong or old they are, they need to know you're not going to skill up that spell and murder everyone who insults you in the gaj or whatever.

Plus some of the special karma classes can literally fuck over all sorts of plots of the common men and you have to know how to do that in a way that's not HAH I IZ MINDBENDER AND YOU IS MY SLAVE!

So it's not hard to get special apps if you prove an understanding of the delicate balance that is required in their use and ultimately not play them with the sole purpose of griefing others (exclusively).

That's why on higher karma roles they ask things like wish up when you're gonna murder someone, that way they can at least watch or I imagine subtly nudge you in another direction if that is a bad idea or whatever.

I do think that karma needs to be a little more freely given and then taken as needed, as it tends to be a little more You're Guilty Of Potentially Doing this role wrong than "Hey we need to give him some rope and see if he hangs himself or builds a nice basket."

But I have to imagine that's because staff has been burned countless times.

[Jihelu]

Ah...
I've always had dreams of dumb characters.
(My posts about rainbow fire surely haven't given people that idea rite?)

Something along the lines of making a character based around DIO. Some sort of warrior/enhancement or full sorcerer that would just punch people to death. Also would need cannibal script. (Bonus points if he regains mana by eating people)